Spotify Complains That Apple Hasn't Approved Update With Subscription Pricing and Links in EU

[wbeasley]

Good luck trying that when their primary market (China) is already at the lowest purchase level ever and raising those prices would do even worse to their stock than it is today already. And raising them only in the EU will take a toll on EU customer loyalty and they will also not be able to benefit from their historical Ireland free tax waiver.

Where do you think 99% of Windows apps are hosted, on MS Azure?

Maybe make a real survey on devs then. How many are happy to pay 15% for the glorious service that Apple provides. That same service that bullies devs that Apple doesn‘t like, like Spotify and Epic.

At least there you have the choice.

Maybe you can just answer the question instead going in deflection mode. The point is that no other company of a mainstream and necessity device prevents developers to distribute their apps in open ways.

Their choice. The DMA is about enabling choices of everyone, not just leaving all the choices to the gatekeeper.

Some people who defend literally everything of Apple no matter what.

I think the Apple defenders like to leave that out and bury this fact with their dsflectionist spam.

You‘re not on Apple‘s bully list.

ah i see Suspended. again...

i dont understand what you meant saying "at least I had a choice".

Of course I had a choice to turn my paid account into a free one.
And it cost Spotify.

Seriously, you need to understand what bullying is.
It's Epic that broke the rules and were booted for their behaviour.
Spotify want something they can't have. And whinge.
Both lobby the EU to do their dirty work. But even the EU booted most of Spotify's complaints.
Read any HR manual. A company taking action against an employee (or a company they do business with) is not bullying if the rules are clear. It's a breach and actions happen because of it.

 

[heretiq]

If we're playing the "they invented it so everyone owes the inventor" then Apple owes everything it makes to Alexander Graham Bell and Thomas Edison. How far to do want to take it? Apple made something. IBM made a PC. So all PC software developers should pay IBM? Oh, but wait...Apple made Mac but Mac software developers don't owe Apple anything, right? This gets interesting...and your logic falls apart.

Classic game of “if you can’t win on facts, deflect and make something .. anything .. up.” I see no one in this discussion suggesting this "they invented it so everyone owes the inventor" argument except the person I quoted. The fact is that Spotify benefits from the iPhone and iOS, its development tools, its distribution platform, and access to the 2B+ devices in the ecosystem that Apple invested billions of dollars to create and maintain. So, that is why Spotify owes Apple. And that has nothing to do with Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, IBM or any other extension of that very tangential argument.

 

[heretiq]

Got some proof that the $99 that everyone pays doesn‘t cover service costs?

Whether the developer fee covers Apple’s cost or not is irrelevant. This is a free enterprise system with functioning, competitive markets and Apple (like Spotify) are free to charge whatever they choose using any pricing mechanism they prefer. There is also no prohibition on the level of profits Apple or Spotify can capture. Like it or not, this is the best model for innovation. If Apple overreaches the market will punish them.

But Spotify is trying to have it both ways: gen-up public fervor and coerce regulators into labeling Apple a monopoly (even though ios has minority market share - 32% vs Android at 68%) and try and use regulation to constrain Apple while preserving its own unregulated, free-market status (even though Spotify has 56% EU market share — more than double its closest competitor). The fact that this is lost on those defending Spotify is baffling.

Spotify is a company with failed leadership which despite having monopolistic market share, cannot turn a consistent profit. Instead, they are resorting to misinformation to gen-up political leverage to achieve through regulation what they cannot accomplish through fair competition.

 

[vakarpochui]

Ah, name calling is really elevating your feeble efforts 😉

You’re already recognized as the least serious participant on this board.

Thanks for “keeping up appearances”!

Name calling? Where? Either way as a man you should survive.

 

[AppliedMicro]

That was the agreement that Spotify voluntarily signed. No one forced them to. And of course they have the right to try and negotiate a better deal now if they want one.

How would they, in practice, go about (re)negotiating their deal with Apple?
And what are Spotify‘s chances of negotiating a better deal, in your opinion?
How likely is Apple going to make any concession and what would it be?

👉 What do you believe?

are willing to spend on apps is because Apple made the App Store a trustworthy place to buy software, and now that customers are used to buying software BECAUSE the App Store provided a safe and secure place to do so, people like you come around say Apple is rent seeking, provides no value to developers, etc.

Apple provide developer tools for a yearly subscription price.
Lots of companies are using them to make lots of money with in-app purchases that do not (have to) go through Apple.

Apple provide not even nearly an adequate additional value for the additional 30% to Spotify are supposed to pay on revenue, compared to all those other developers that pay nothing (other than the developer subscription). Furthermore, Apple are directly competing with Spotify on music streaming.

And prohibiting communication to customers, literally restricting the words and links they can put into their apps for commercial gain is, yes, rent-seeking behaviour. Not providing value.

Clearly they determined that they *wanted those things of value*, so they agreed to the "Reader" requirement of no in app ads for your own payment service

…which is an anticompetitive and overreaching requirement.
An illegal anti-steering policy, as ruled in the U.S. and the E.U. (and that didn’t even require the DMA as a new law).

 

[AppliedMicro]

Thinking that Apple users are somehow being forced against their will to buy products like Apple Watches or subscribe to Apple Music

It almost feels like that, to be honest, considering how often (and where) they’ve been trying to foist that upon me with their ads for free trials. Subscribing seems the only way to get rid of these pesky ads for good 😉

They just want to see Apple proven wrong and being humbled.

They certainly deserve no sympathy. Apple makes well-designed products - but they’ve always (and increasingly) under Cook been overcontrolling, greedy, and near-abusive towards their business partners.

gen-up public fervor and coerce regulators into labeling Apple a monopoly (even though ios has minority market share - 32% vs Android at 68%

More than half of user spending in Europe.

 

[Abazigal]

More than half of user spending in Europe.

And yet when I pointed that out 10 years ago as evidence of why the iphone was not losing the smartphone wars, it got dismissed as an irrelevant statistic.

 

[vakarpochui]

Right is right and wrong is wrong.

Regardless, I guess this is the sort of discussion that will dominate the Macrumours message boards for the rest of the decade. Can't say it's really my cup of tea.

To set the proper context, one needs to remember that for the last decade, Apple was positioned as one iPhone update away from implosion. Low market and sales share (relative to Android) were paraded around as signs of an incompetent product strategy. Simply put, Apple was framed as being weak and vulnerable, dependent on revenue sources that could disappear overnight due to consumers fleeing to the competition.

This was the sort of clickbait that dominated tech blogs and news headlines, and people lapped it up. Instead, Apple went on to defy all criticism and conventional wisdom to become the trillion dollar company it is today.

Today, that narrative has completely shifted, because it's clear that talk of Apple having "lost its way" simply wasn't working anymore. Everyone and their mother is now infatuated with Apple’s power, its ironclad grip over the App Store, and the idea that Apple users are stuck or imprisoned in a massive walled garden where things like iMessage, Apple Watches, and AirPods force people to remain within Apple’s walls. Government regulators are viewed as the only entity capable of protecting Apple users from Apple (we saw this as early as the Epic trial in 2020).

Every inch of ground that Apple gives up in order to accommodate the DMA is interpreted as them being humiliated and "put in their proper place", as though it somehow makes up for the last 10+ years of having been wrong about what makes Apple tick. I don't think that many people here are genuinely interested in the merits and pitfalls of the DMA (how many here are even impacted by it?). They just want to see Apple proven wrong and being humbled.

Thinking that Apple users are somehow being forced against their will to buy products like Apple Watches or subscribe to Apple Music is nothing more than competitors such as Spotify looking for someone to blame for market failures when the problem is found internally with a bad vision, inadequate corporate culture, and lack of understanding as to what makes Apple unique.

While the CEOs of companies like Epic and Spotify shooting their mouths off do make for juicy headlines capable of grabbing people’s attention, I am confident that they won’t play a major role in Apple’s future. Apple will continue to develop a dynamic ecosystem consisting of great experiences that customers are willing to pay for. Meanwhile, I simply don't see a route to Spotify being profitable anytime soon, if ever, and nothing in the DMA looks like it will remedy this.

Apple will continue to be its biggest competitor. Keep that in mind the next time anyone here feels tempted to utter the hackneyed phrase "more competition is good for the customer". 😉

Pretty much spot on.

 

[vakarpochui]

And yet when I pointed that out 10 years ago as evidence of why the iphone was not losing the smartphone wars, it got dismissed as an irrelevant statistic.

Because you are dealing with people who get hurt by words.

 

[heretiq]

It almost feels like that, to be honest, considering how often (and where) they’ve been trying to foist that upon me with their ads for free trials. Subscribing seems the only way to get rid of these pesky ads for good 😉

They certainly deserve no sympathy. Apple makes well-designed products - but they’ve always (and increasingly) under Cook been overcontrolling, greedy, and near-abusive towards their business partners.

More than half of user spending in Europe.

That more than half of user spending with only 32% market share demonstrates the value that Apple brings to the table as a platform for users, developers and service providers that participate in the Apple ecosystem. Those results were earned — not given and should be celebrated not derided or twisted to support unsubstantiated claims.

 

[GBstoic]

This only serves to draw attention to the anti-competitive alternative to paying Apple’s toll which is forcing competitors to add friction with their customers. Not sure why you think this is a counter-argument to the purpose and value of the DMA. It’s exactly the kind of thing that’s being mitigated.

The DMA is about 3rd party app stores and ”side loading”. The Apple/Spotify dispute generated the $1.8bn fine and is years old. Nothing to do with DMA.

As for friction. If you could subscribe through an app you would still have to provide name, address and credit card details. Plenty of friction there.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

Wow. That’s pretty dismissive of someone without vested interest and who knows infinitely more than anyone in this conversation about the subject.

He seems to have an axe to grind, I view everything he says through that lens.

 

[AppliedMicro]

That more than half of user spending with only 32% market share demonstrates the value that Apple brings to the table as a platform for users, developers and service providers that participate in the Apple ecosystem. Those results were earned — not given

No, it’s mostly rent, not earned income.
Even supports of Apple’s business terms implicitly acknowledge that when they’re calling it “access to customers”

 

[ToyoCorollaGR]

Just two things. First, you're confusing Epic with Spotify. Spotify has never exhibited malicious or deceptive behavior. That language is even a stretch for Epic. Deceptive yes. Malicious, debatable.

Anyway, second thing, you are literally the first independent developer I have ever seen praise Apple like this. Superlatives and all.

This post reads like Apple is paying you to write it. I'll take it at face value and give it the benefit of the doubt.

It reads like it was carefully crafted.

 

[MilaM]

But Spotify is trying to have it both ways: gen-up public fervor and coerce regulators into labeling Apple a monopoly (even though ios has minority market share - 32% vs Android at 68%) and try and use regulation to constrain Apple while preserving its own unregulated, free-market status [...]

So what you are suggesting is, that a small Swedish company, with roundabout 3 percent of Apple's revenue, managed to get the unanimous backing of 27 independently elected European governments AND more than 80% of the vote of the European Parliament, to get the Digital Markets Act passed, just to give it a leg up against Apple and Google in the music streaming business?

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense to me.

 

[surferfb]

So what you are suggesting is, that a small Swedish company, with roundabout 3 percent of Apple's revenue, managed to get the unanimous backing of 27 independently elected European governments AND more than 80% of the vote of the European Parliament, to get the Digital Markets Act passed, just to give it a leg up against Apple and Google in the music streaming business?

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense to me.

You can’t figure out why a company based in the EU might have more sway with the EU than an American company? And why said European governments and parliament might want to give it a leg up when competing with an American company?

 

[MilaM]

You can’t figure out why a company based in the EU might have more sway with the EU than an American company? And why said European governments and parliament might want to give it a leg up when competing with an American company?

Not by passing a law with this impact. No government apart maybe the Swedish one gives a **** about Spotify as a business, I can assure you. It is more likely that they were thinking about companies in their countries that are in similar situation though.

 

[GBstoic]

So what you are suggesting is, that a small Swedish company, with roundabout 3 percent of Apple's revenue, managed to get the unanimous backing of 27 independently elected European governments AND more than 80% of the vote of the European Parliament, to get the Digital Markets Act passed, just to give it a leg up against Apple and Google in the music streaming business?

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense to me.

As previously mentioned this dipspute has nothing to do with the DMA. Spotify has not suggested it wants to open its own App Store.

 

[MilaM]

As previously mentioned this dipspute has nothing to do with the DMA. Spotify has not suggested it wants to open its own App Store.

The DMA is not only mandating alternative app stores and is much broader.

The ability of any app publisher to promote subscription pricing outside of the App Store and to link to it is explicitly mandated by the DMA (see Article 5(3)). That is the reason why Spotify is complaining publicly about Apple witholding the update to their App.

 

[heretiq]

So what you are suggesting is, that a small Swedish company, with roundabout 3 percent of Apple's revenue, managed to get the unanimous backing of 27 independently elected European governments AND more than 80% of the vote of the European Parliament, to get the Digital Markets Act passed, just to give it a leg up against Apple and Google in the music streaming business?

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense to me.

The post is explicit in what it’s stating: Spotify is trying to leverage regulation to get its way with Apple while clinging to free market principles for its own services. It is not a statement about the DMA. Spotify’s complaint that Apple has not acknowledged its submission is deceptive — AppStore Connect provides automated updates for the status of every submission. Apart from that Apple does not acknowledge or send emails to individual developers. Spotify knows this and knows the general public is ignorant of this — so they go public with a contrived issue to gen-up public fervor.

 

[MilaM]

The post is explicit in what it’s stating: Spotify is trying to leverage regulation to get its way with Apple while clinging to free market principles for its own services. It is not a statement about the DMA. Spotify’s complaint that Apple has not acknowledged its submission is deceptive.

Not sure what is deceptive here. It's pretty clear, that Apple has to allow Spotify to promote their plans now inside the app. There is really not much room for interpretation there.

Is it otherwise normal to wait seven business days to get your app update approved by Apple, without any feedback from app reviewers?

 

[heretiq]

Not sure what is deceptive here. It's pretty clear, that Apple has to allow Spotify to promote their plans now inside the app. There is really not much room for interpretation there.

Is it otherwise normal to wait seven business days to get your app update approved by Apple, without any feedback from app reviewers?

Deceptive is claiming that Apple hasn’t acknowledged the submission when all they have to do is sign into AppStore Connect to see the acknowledgement and current status — like every other developer does.

The timing depends on a number of factors including: complexity of the change, AppStore review workload, and other submission specifics.

Status is immediately updated upon submission to indicate submission received and waiting for review, then reviewer assigned, in review, approved, rejected, etc. This is an automated process by necessity to operate at the scale of 2M apps and 1M developers. So Spotify can che k the status any time. Apple does not reach out to anyone directly — it’s all done through the system.

In this case I suspect review timeline may be impacted by review volume which is probably higher than normal due to the DMA changes, as well as Spotify’s past deceptive behavior and disregard for developer guidelines.

I think a prudent review of this submission would involve multiple layers of review and validation by AppStore reviewers as well as Legal to make sure the submission is what it claims to be and to craft the reply to minimize legal jeopardy. Spotify’s behavior itself is contributing to the delay.

 

[1129846]

Deceptive is claiming that Apple hasn’t acknowledged the submission when all they have to do is sign into AppStore Connect to see the acknowledgement and current status — like every other developer does.

The timing depends on a number of factors including: complexity of the change, AppStore review workload, and other submission specifics. In this case I suspect the review volume may be increased due to the DMA changes as well as Spotify’s past deceptive behavior and disregard for developer guidelines. I think a prudent review of this submission would include involve multiple layers of review and validation by AppStore reviewers as well as Legal to make sure the submission is what it claims to be and to craft the reply to minimize legal jeopardy. Spotify’s behavior itself is contributing to the delay.

Review volume has not increased enough to warrant over a 9x the norm.

It is also the same volume world wide as it all routes through the same location.

The other time of year you see a massive review spike is right before Christmas and generally around release of the new OS. Even then it might be a 50% increase in time. Hence why the volume spike is being called as bs. Normal time is 24 hours. Spotify crossed 9 days.

 

[MilaM]

I think a prudent review of this submission would involve multiple layers of review and validation by AppStore reviewers as well as Legal to make sure the submission is what it claims to be and to craft the reply to minimize legal jeopardy. Spotify’s behavior itself is contributing to the delay.

Maybe Spotify could have given Apple more time before they went public with this. But then again, Apple had more than a year to prepare for this day. And if you consider, that Spotify was releasing their app on a weekly schedule consistently for a while, I can understand why the lost patience in this case.

 

[AppliedMicro]

In this case I suspect review timeline may be impacted by review volume which is probably higher than normal due to the DMA changes, as well as Spotify’s past deceptive behavior and disregard for developer guidelines.

Deceptive behaviour and disregard for guidelines? They clearly have a gripe with the rules and challenged them legally - but they've been playing along. They didn't just put their own in-app payment (in like Epic).

Taking it straight from the horse's mouth, Apple themselves:

"Our App Review team has reviewed and approved 421 versions of the Spotify app — usually with same-day turnaround"

👉 If Spotify had a history of deceptive behaviour and disregard for guidelines, don't you think Apple would have mentioned it right there!?

Spotify’s behavior itself is contributing to the delay.

Don't think so. It's probably rather Apple desperately trying to find something wrong with it, deny approval on minor technicalities and/or make it as hard and bad for Spotify as possible.

I think a prudent review of this submission would involve multiple layers of review and validation by AppStore reviewers as well as Legal to make sure the submission is what it claims to be

👉 What would be so hard about this?

The only potentially contentious thing we know of that Spotify added is "pricing and a link to our website".
In other words: a few words, images and a link, maybe a pop-up or something

👉 That really doesn't take rocket science to approve. And is nothing dangerous to consumers.


Could Spotify have included something else that's contentious in their submission? Possibly, but that'd be really dumb, if they want - as they're now doing - blame Apple for refusal to approve. The clever thing is to only include the pricing information/link as they only end user-facing change in the app.